Hi,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:01:28PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:01:25AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >
> > I see fs/ext3/hash.c but do not see fs/ext2/hash.c in kernel.
> >
> > Let me be specific. Let me not make judgement if I have ext2 or ext3
> > without journaling.
> >
> > I made filesystem using mkfs.ext2. This is fact.
> >
> > I did not experience any problem by moving microSD card between armel
> > and amd64 if I mount it to running system.
>
> I didn't get the first message in this thread, so I'm not sure I
> completely understand the context of the question, but it's correct
> that the signed vs. unsigned char problem with the hash algorithm only
> applies to ext3 and ext4 filesystems, since ext2 doesn't have support
> for htree directory indexing, which is where the issue showed up.
>
> As far as I know there are no current signed vs unsigned issues in
> ext2/3/4, assuming you are using modern kernels and e2fsprogs.
Yes, Debian stable kernels, despite it has non-modern" version number,
have this patch applied.
My questions can be summarized as following 3 questions:
Q1. Is there some option to fsck.ext2
to force unsigned under amd64 or
to force signed under armel.
Q2. Is there option to tune2fs to change signed or unsigned flag.
Q3. Is it normal to have exitcode=1 for fsck under armel if partition
has been created with mkfs.ext2 under amd64 to be unsigned? (It
seemed to me that fsck under such case tends to find the
filesystem not to be cleanly unmounted.)
Basically, I am experiencing some problem as described as Q3 and wanted
to do either Q1 or Q2 actions.
Osamu